Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[Unkotare]

No, your conscience on this is immoral and your procedure is unconstitutional.

The territories were admitted IAW legislative procedure.

It was immoral for federal troops to murder those who wanted to determine their own destiny.
The legislative action to enter the union was not violent, and the same should have been true to leave.

How anyone can argue against this is beyond me.

A lot of things are beyond you.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sounds like you just want to get your ass kicked again.

Dude you couldn't kick the ass of a Room temperature IQ 4th grader.
The OP stated some facts. You don't like them.
So you issue an idle threat.
What's that make you into?

It means I judged the situation correctly. If they want to start trouble be ready for an ass kicking.

No you like any other typical limp wrist liberal use a threat and call on a central government for oppression and abuse to save your ass.

I wouldn't have to lift a finger. Do whatever it is you want to do and I guarantee they will be waiting for you. They monitor message boards and probably already have your address anyway.

Wow...Yer kidding right?....You believe the government is watching USMB?....
I like this one "they".....

 

[nuhuh]

Sounds like you just want to get your ass kicked again.

Dude you couldn't kick the ass of a Room temperature IQ 4th grader.
The OP stated some facts. You don't like them.
So you issue an idle threat.
What's that make you into?

It means I judged the situation correctly. If they want to start trouble be ready for an ass kicking.

No....You didn't like the facts. So you decided to issue and idle threat.
You libs have convinced yourselves that you have the exclusive right to yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theater and get away with it.
You've had control of the narrative for one day too long. It just ended.
This is not a discussion. No need for you to reply. Done

LOL, you're serious aren't you? It wasn't an idle threat you have no idea the trouble you're begging for.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep, the feds, and some state agencies, "listen" to board chatter all the time.

Folks do not know that?

 

[nuhuh]

Sounds like you just want to get your ass kicked again.

Dude you couldn't kick the ass of a Room temperature IQ 4th grader.
The OP stated some facts. You don't like them.
So you issue an idle threat.
What's that make you into?

It means I judged the situation correctly. If they want to start trouble be ready for an ass kicking.

No you like any other typical limp wrist liberal use a threat and call on a central government for oppression and abuse to save your ass.

I wouldn't have to lift a finger. Do whatever it is you want to do and I guarantee they will be waiting for you. They monitor message boards and probably already have your address anyway.

Wow...Yer kidding right?....You believe the government is watching USMB?....
I like this one "they".....

You need to read up on DHS and NSA ,of course they follow social media and blogs.

 

[thereisnospoon]

it was always the original intent of the Framing Generation that Federal law be supreme, that the rulings of Federal courts be supreme, and that the Constitution and its case law be the supreme law of the land, immune from attack by the states.

Only within the parameters of enumerated powers. The federal government had no rights under the Constitution to grant itself additional power short of an amendment to the Constitution.

Few liberals will admit to this fact.
When "the US Constitution is a limiting document", libs are so angered, they go through out of the body experiences

 

[jillian]

Sounds like you just want to get your ass kicked again.

he's just a brain-dead buffoon who should probably read this before he pretends to opine on what is "irrefutable legal proof"

Texas v. White US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Jillian princess, are you trying to prove why women are only worth .75 to the dollar? Texas v White is the SC ruling that held states cannot secede, you should read it before you comment.

Perhaps you should read, idiots. I know what it says and the o/p bro-confederate insureectionist was saying he could find legal justification for secession.

Now don't you feel stupid?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yep, the feds, and some state agencies, "listen" to board chatter all the time.

Folks do not know that?

Oh sure.. LIke we care....**** 'em.....The First Amendment keeps these federal shithead busy bodies at bay.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep, the feds, and some state agencies, "listen" to board chatter all the time.

Folks do not know that?

Oh sure.. LIke we care....**** 'em.....The First Amendment keeps these federal shithead busy bodies at bay.

Yup, tell that to the Muslim and religious crazies they have been arresting.

You don't get to threaten folks with impunity.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Secession and treason were immoral, putting the traitors down was righteous.

And you don't decide how it should have been done.

You don't take disagreement well, do you?

I'm sure the British said the same thing about our forefathers when they declared their independence.
Looks like we know which side you would have taken. I don't suppose your last name is Arnold ?

You must really like slavery.

Not at all. Slavery was wrong, but it's a completely separate issue from whether secession was right or wrong.

The South wanted to continue the practice and they knew if they stayed in the union their days of being able to own other human beings were numbered. Their reason for secession was immoral, but regardless, they should have been allowed to leave the union and control their own destiny.

The north on the other hand did not go to war to end slavery. They fought to preserve the union. Slavery was a secondary issue. Lincoln himself even contemplated rounding up blacks and shipping them elsewhere, rather than fighting to free them. Many southerners believed that once the fighting started, most northerners would not stomach killing their southern white brothers in order to end slavery, and because of this the fighting would be short lived and they would prevail. Instead it's likely over 600,000 American men were killed, about 2% of the population, or in todays terms about 6 million.

So what is more dangerous 50 small states following the rule of law or one large state not following the law? Seems to me 50 states fighting among themselves to iron out differences regarding commerce and resources is far more dangerous and patently foolish.

That is the point.....it would not be 50 states...it would be 50 countries. And when California decides to take over Nevada (for what reason I could never tell)....who would stop them ? Sound Dakota ?

 

[nuhuh]

Yep, the feds, and some state agencies, "listen" to board chatter all the time.

Folks do not know that?

Oh sure.. LIke we care....**** 'em.....The First Amendment keeps these federal shithead busy bodies at bay.

Uh oh, you better check your computer for key loggers and your car for gps trackers and make sure your cell phones mic isn't listening to your conversations. The threat is real.

 

[nuhuh]

Secession and treason were immoral, putting the traitors down was righteous.

And you don't decide how it should have been done.

You don't take disagreement well, do you?

I'm sure the British said the same thing about our forefathers when they declared their independence.
Looks like we know which side you would have taken. I don't suppose your last name is Arnold ?

You must really like slavery.

Not at all. Slavery was wrong, but it's a completely separate issue from whether secession was right or wrong.

The South wanted to continue the practice and they knew if they stayed in the union their days of being able to own other human beings were numbered. Their reason for secession was immoral, but regardless, they should have been allowed to leave the union and control their own destiny.

The north on the other hand did not go to war to end slavery. They fought to preserve the union. Slavery was a secondary issue. Lincoln himself even contemplated rounding up blacks and shipping them elsewhere, rather than fighting to free them. Many southerners believed that once the fighting started, most northerners would not stomach killing their southern white brothers in order to end slavery, and because of this the fighting would be short lived and they would prevail. Instead it's likely over 600,000 American men were killed, about 2% of the population, or in todays terms about 6 million.

So what is more dangerous 50 small states following the rule of law or one large state not following the law? Seems to me 50 states fighting among themselves to iron out differences regarding commerce and resources is far more dangerous and patently foolish.

That is the point.....it would not be 50 states...it would be 50 countries. And when California decides to take over Nevada (for what reason I could never tell)....who would stop them ? Sound Dakota ?

Yes, they have a child like view of what they could accomplish. The fight for resources and jobs will seal the deal for them, just lock their border and watch Mad Max take care of the rest.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, and turn off your sound volume and tape the camera 'eye' shut.

And why we have a perpetual Union is so that, originally, thirteen states did not take into their collective minds to think they could war on one another.

 

[DarkFury]

Oh, and turn off your sound volume and tape the camera 'eye' shut.

And why we have a perpetual Union is so that, originally, thirteen states did not take into their collective minds to think they could war on one another.

13 self ruled Republics joined in the cause of united defense.

 

[Idadunno]

Here it is folks. Now you Lincoln cult members can commence whining and blubbering:

Downsizing the U.S.A. - Thomas H. Naylor William H. Willimon - Google Books

First, no less than seven states had engaged in acts of nullification of the U.S. Constitution long before South Carolina announced its plans to secede on December 20 1960 – Kentucky (1799), Pennsylvania (1809), Georgia (1832), South Carolina (1832), Wisconsin (1854) Massachusetts (1855), and Vermont (1858), According to Professor H Newcomb Morse, “Nullification occurs when people of a state refuse to recognize the validity of an exercise of power by the national government which, in the state’s view, transcends the limited and enumerated delegated powers of the national constitution.” Those instances where national laws have been nullified by Northern states gave credence to the view that the compact forming the Union had already been breached and the Confederate states were morally and legally free to leave.

Second, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Stated alternatively, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed.

Third, while the Confederate States were in the process of seceding, three amendments to the Constitution were presented to the U.S. Congress placing conditions on the rights of states to seceded. Then on March 2, 1861, after seven states had already seceded an amendment was proposed which would have outlawed secession entirely. Although none of these amendments were ever ratified, Professor Morse asked, “Why would Congress have considered proposed amendments to the Constitution forbidding or restricting the right of secession if any such right was already prohibited, limited or non-existent under the Constitution?”

Fourth, three of the original thirteen states – Virginia, New York and Rhode Island – ratified the U.S. Constitution only conditionally. Each explicitly retained the right to secede. By the time South Carolina seceded in 1860, a total of thirty three states had acceded to the Union. By accepting the right of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island to secede, had they not tacitly accepted the doctrine of secession for the nation as a whole?

Fifth, according to Professor Morse, after the Civil War the Union occupation armies were removed from Arkansas, North Carolina, Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Virginia only after those former Confederate States had incorporated in their constitutions a clause surrendering the right to secede, Mr Morse has also noted that, “under this premise, all of the Northern States and ny other states required to relinquish the right to secede in their constitutions would still have the right to secede at present”​

The Supreme Court ruled that secession is unconstitutional. Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

 

[Idadunno]

There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.

I just proved there is, dumbass.

Take your medication and go back to the home. The orderlies are looking for you.

Sheesh Bripat, you offered an opinion via a Google book and he offered a Supreme Court decision. That's a huge difference and you didn't "prove" a thing.

So because the SCOTUS say's it would be unconstitutional, would you then be all for the U.S. military to be sent in to kill citizens of a state if they voted to have control of their own destiny by seceding ?

If you have no right under the Constitution to secede, you have in effect become an enemy of the state and have reduced your role in the state to one controlled by Jurisprudence and corrections.

You, as a person, have the right to secede. You can leave the country any time you want.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, and turn off your sound volume and tape the camera 'eye' shut.

And why we have a perpetual Union is so that, originally, thirteen states did not take into their collective minds to think they could war on one another.

13 self ruled Republics joined in the cause of united defense.

And created a perpetual Union.

 

[bripat9643]

Here it is folks. Now you Lincoln cult members can commence whining and blubbering:

Downsizing the U.S.A. - Thomas H. Naylor William H. Willimon - Google Books

First, no less than seven states had engaged in acts of nullification of the U.S. Constitution long before South Carolina announced its plans to secede on December 20 1960 – Kentucky (1799), Pennsylvania (1809), Georgia (1832), South Carolina (1832), Wisconsin (1854) Massachusetts (1855), and Vermont (1858), According to Professor H Newcomb Morse, “Nullification occurs when people of a state refuse to recognize the validity of an exercise of power by the national government which, in the state’s view, transcends the limited and enumerated delegated powers of the national constitution.” Those instances where national laws have been nullified by Northern states gave credence to the view that the compact forming the Union had already been breached and the Confederate states were morally and legally free to leave.

Second, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid secession. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Stated alternatively, that which is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed.

Third, while the Confederate States were in the process of seceding, three amendments to the Constitution were presented to the U.S. Congress placing conditions on the rights of states to seceded. Then on March 2, 1861, after seven states had already seceded an amendment was proposed which would have outlawed secession entirely. Although none of these amendments were ever ratified, Professor Morse asked, “Why would Congress have considered proposed amendments to the Constitution forbidding or restricting the right of secession if any such right was already prohibited, limited or non-existent under the Constitution?”

Fourth, three of the original thirteen states – Virginia, New York and Rhode Island – ratified the U.S. Constitution only conditionally. Each explicitly retained the right to secede. By the time South Carolina seceded in 1860, a total of thirty three states had acceded to the Union. By accepting the right of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island to secede, had they not tacitly accepted the doctrine of secession for the nation as a whole?

Fifth, according to Professor Morse, after the Civil War the Union occupation armies were removed from Arkansas, North Carolina, Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Virginia only after those former Confederate States had incorporated in their constitutions a clause surrendering the right to secede, Mr Morse has also noted that, “under this premise, all of the Northern States and ny other states required to relinquish the right to secede in their constitutions would still have the right to secede at present”​

Give it the **** up. Your democrat heroes tried and started a war and lost like the traitors they were. Get the **** over it you inbred retard

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Why should I give it up when you are so obviously sputtering impotently? You have yet to address the arguments presented in the OP.

Just admit that your sainted hero was a mass murdering tyrant who started an illegal war.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yep, the feds, and some state agencies, "listen" to board chatter all the time.

Folks do not know that?

Oh sure.. LIke we care....**** 'em.....The First Amendment keeps these federal shithead busy bodies at bay.

Uh oh, you better check your computer for key loggers and your car for gps trackers and make sure your cell phones mic isn't listening to your conversations. The threat is real.

No the threat is real(ly) in your head.

 

[Idadunno]

There is no legal right to secession, then or now or in the future, unless Congress either permits it or the Constitution is amended.

I just proved there is, dumbass.

Take your medication and go back to the home. The orderlies are looking for you.

Sheesh Bripat, you offered an opinion via a Google book and he offered a Supreme Court decision. That's a huge difference and you didn't "prove" a thing.

So because the SCOTUS say's it would be unconstitutional, would you then be all for the U.S. military to be sent in to kill citizens of a state if they voted to have control of their own destiny by seceding ?

The best way to punish secession dissenters is to cut off their federal funds. They will come crawling back within a month because they did not get their checks.